Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#11

Post by ilovetux »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

There are two main reasons:

First, and probably the largest motivator, is that if you fire someone without cause they will typically be able to collect on unemployment insurance which would increase the employers premiums each month.

Second, nobody likes to fire people especially if they haven't done anything wrong. Also, layoffs like this hurt the moralle of the remaining workers which could turn into too much turnover.

Having someone quit is usually preferable to increasing costs and hurting moralle, but that will not stop businesses from doing what they feel the need to do.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#12

Post by FFP999 »

lloydatkinson wrote: post #9
Supermancho wrote: post #5

Nobody is quitting because jobs are more competitive than 5 years ago. This looks like yet another WSJ hit piece on the lower classes. The company management isn't to blame for people getting fired, it's the workers (who perform) not quitting. Those pesky workers make it so hard for a company to always look like the good guy. They really are always the good guy, obviously.

WSJ can’t help but write hit pieces, I think they are paid for. Firstly workers should be grateful to waste hours of time commuting to office jobs and shouldn’t be allowed remote jobs, then the next meme is “silent quitting”, the current meme is “workers aren’t quitting enough (sub text: bosses are running out of ways to instil misery and stress)”

The WSJ writes hit pieces because they know exactly who their audience is (the business wing of the Republican party and the Republican wing of the business community) and if they didn't write hit pieces, said audience would lose interest.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#14

Post by stronglikedan »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

Only in "at will" states, and usually then, only when your company is small enough (like <50 employees). And even then, you still have to be careful to not give a reason. If you give any hint of a reason, the employee can sue for it.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#15

Post by jawns »

Last year, there were a number of high-profile lay-offs in the tech industry. Companies used those not only to get to "lean" staffing levels but also to get rid of underperformers en masse.

If you happen to have survived those, but aspire to just coast for a while, this is a great time for you.

Budgets remain fairly constrained, which means that if a manager needs to let someone go because of lackluster performance, they're probably not guaranteed a back-fill. Thus, unless the employee's performance is so poor that it would be better to fire them and let their seat go unfilled, coasters are in a pretty safe position ... at least until the next round of layoffs.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#16

Post by pwdisswordfishc »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

Plausible deniability. Laying off people sends a signal to the market that failing to hire does not.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#17

Post by michaelt »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

Well, the headaches are pretty minor:

Bosses who want to cut headcount without layoffs can do so by just not replacing people who quit - if nobody's quitting, that's not possible.

Things like training schemes might have been sized on the assumption you'll have >100 open positions in a year's time, when these 100 trainees finish the scheme. Firing them instead is not good for anyone involved.

Bored star employees can't move teams if other teams don't have open spaces.

And some people think constant employee movement stops teams becoming 'stagnant' as job hoppers sometimes bring in experience, ideas and methods from outside.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#18

Post by Ajay-p »

ilovetux wrote: post #11
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

There are two main reasons: First, and probably the largest motivator, is that if you fire someone without cause they will typically be able to collect on unemployment insurance which would increase the employers premiums each month. Second, nobody likes to fire people especially if they haven't done anything wrong. Also, layoffs like this hurt the moralle of the remaining workers which could turn into too much turno…

You forget the legal ramifications of firing someone. If they are a protected class - POC, women, disabled, etc. - it can mean a large headache in the form of a lawsuit, or a complaint to a labor board. Many companies have run into this when attempting to separate someone who advocated for unionization.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#19

Post by davio »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

It's a headache at a population level. Given a 10,000+ company, they will have plans for X% retiring, Y% leaving, Z% college hires to replace them. Most HR departments I have worked with track "regrettable turnover" - how many high performers are we losing.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#20

Post by gampleman »

Pet theory: real wages in tech have dropped since pandemic levels, so for the first time in years staying in your job (provided you got it a few years ago) is better financially than switching. The sector was pretty accustomed to constant churn, so this sticking with it is pretty unusual.
Post reply on HN